GF1: Do you miss in-body IS??

My previous cameras and lenses never have IS on them. I have learnt to stabilised/braced myself to shoot. Plus my previous camera was very capable shooting at iso1600 and 3200.

With the GF1, I have the fast 20/1.7, which is great for low light. Plus I also have the 14-45 which has IS on it. I am pleasantly surprised with the ability of IS on the lens though. Was able to shoot a lot lower shutter speeds than I thought.

--
http://www.pbase.com/antidote3

plevyadophy said:

In my view, anyone starting from scratch should build their cams with in-body IS. I really don't see why anyone in their right mind would do otherwise; and if a lens works better with O.I.S. then that could always be made and attached to the body with the in-body I.S. switched off.

Click to expand...

I agree with you totally, still I chose to get the GH1 without any in-body IS. I believed in the future of u4/3, and found the GH1 to be the most interesting camera at the time. I still think it is, even with the attachable viewfinder for the E-P2. The tiltable LCD closed the deal for me, as well as the high res viewfinder.

I still miss OIS very much when using the 20mm prime. Perhaps some time in the future there will be a u4/3 camera with tiltable viewfinder and in-body IS. From Olympus, I would guess.

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2009/12/optical-image-stabilization.html

What on earth did we do without IS?

Oh yes, stand still hold the camera to the eye and brace yourself properly. Hmm this is an issue with an EP/GF without the EVF. So IS is useful. I reckon that some of the soft shots are caused by the IS in the first place.

Perhaps we are hyped up to feel that we absolutely need some sort of IS, we are never happy.

Think back to photographers who never had Intelligent ISO and IS and critique their work...they are the inspiration.

peppermonkey said:

mpgxsvcd said:

All that being said I realize now that I really need in body IS for videos past 100mm equivalent. I don't like carrying a tripod and I just can't prevent camera shake at those levels of zoom with video.

Click to expand...

Actually you bring up a good point. I do wish there was IS for the 20mm when doing video. I don't 'need' it but it would help I would imagine when doing video such as when walking, well, help a little anyhow.

Click to expand...

-- Actually EP1/EP2 do not even use their IBIS system when using video because of overheating problems but use an electronic IS which is less effective than OIS instead. This probably is one major factor why Pany and others have stuck to only OIS and that is for video use.

I wouldn't be too surprised to see Pany adding EIS to their next GF2 and GH2 as an assist when using manual focus lenses as should be quite easy and inexpensive to do?

Thanks for that heads up. I thought that the in body IS was always operational for the EP-1.

safaridon said:

peppermonkey said:

mpgxsvcd said:

All that being said I realize now that I really need in body IS for videos past 100mm equivalent. I don't like carrying a tripod and I just can't prevent camera shake at those levels of zoom with video.

Click to expand...

Actually you bring up a good point. I do wish there was IS for the 20mm when doing video. I don't 'need' it but it would help I would imagine when doing video such as when walking, well, help a little anyhow.

Click to expand...

-- Actually EP1/EP2 do not even use their IBIS system when using video because of overheating problems but use an electronic IS which is less effective than OIS instead. This probably is one major factor why Pany and others have stuck to only OIS and that is for video use.

I wouldn't be too surprised to see Pany adding EIS to their next GF2 and GH2 as an assist when using manual focus lenses as should be quite easy and inexpensive to do?

Click to expand...

--
GF1 & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads

...but it's not worth the tradeoffs currently in Olympuses cameras.

I'm in the camp of people who find that IS is a bit more important with cameras that are going to be used at "arm's length" most of the time, since that kind of technique is inherently less stable than holding a viewfinder up to your eye - where you're braced not only by both of your arms, but also through pressing the eyepiece to your face.

I'm not going to hold out hope that Panasonic will introduce IBIS, so I suppose I will hold out for an Olympus that has better AF and general shooting performance.

--
Sam Bennett - http://www.swiftbennett.com

Ahh, forgot about that. I remember talk about that a while back. Well in that case, I miss IS in the 20mm for video

EIS in Panny cameras does sound like a great thing for manual lenses if they do come out with it. Would alleviate a lot of the huffing and puffing (groaning) we hear about the Panny G line (Course, if the Oly line would just put in better AF and in body emergency/fill flash it would achieve the same thing).

safaridon said:

peppermonkey said:

mpgxsvcd said:

All that being said I realize now that I really need in body IS for videos past 100mm equivalent. I don't like carrying a tripod and I just can't prevent camera shake at those levels of zoom with video.

Click to expand...

Actually you bring up a good point. I do wish there was IS for the 20mm when doing video. I don't 'need' it but it would help I would imagine when doing video such as when walking, well, help a little anyhow.

Click to expand...

-- Actually EP1/EP2 do not even use their IBIS system when using video because of overheating problems but use an electronic IS which is less effective than OIS instead. This probably is one major factor why Pany and others have stuck to only OIS and that is for video use.

I wouldn't be too surprised to see Pany adding EIS to their next GF2 and GH2 as an assist when using manual focus lenses as should be quite easy and inexpensive to do?

Click to expand...

--
Hubert

My cameras: GF1, TZ3, recently fixed (I think) Minolta Hi-Matic 7s, broken Konica Auto S2(couldn't fix, who the heck GLUES screws in??), K1000 and my wife's old K110D



http://www.flickr.com/photos/peppermonkey/

Unfortunately it is not easy to compare the effectiveness of image stabilization on various cameras and lenses. For example DPR showed a on/off image stabilization comparison on EP1 with 50mm lens and although DPR claimed a 2 stop stabilization yet at 1/125 sec the EP1 was less steady than other cameras at same effective focal length even without benefit of IS ? Better criteria is to compare at what speeds all photos will be sharp which is most important not how many steps improved as they start from a different base. Unfortunately when tested the GF1 they did not even include an image stabilization test because they were apparently testing only the 20/1.7 unstabilized lens. I hope they do this since would be useful for others like you to compare and just maybe the GF1 mechanisms are steadier at these speeds or maybe not? Tests on the GH1 however did show at the max tele range at least a full 2 stop gain.

I rely on using IS all the time and usually just take it forgranted as in all my compacts and in my DSLRs both of which have IBIS. I frequently take shots at only 1/60sec and 300mm focal length with some success and DPR review on Pany GH1 shows this level of steadyness very reasonable using OIS so am a bit shocked to see DPR report the EP1 at effective length 100mm or 1/3rd the above difficult to get totally sharp focus at 1/125th sec even with IS either off or 1/60th sec on?

Best guess by many is the way of holding a compact m4/3 w/o viewfinder induces greater shake than holding the camera firm against your face so some say much assume use of speed 1 stop faster than normal 1/focal length criteria. However the EP1 seemed least effective at the 100mm effective focal length compared to results at other lengths suggesting that maybe the vibrations of the EP1 shutter at a particular speed have something to do with the increased shake. No way of knowing without test whether or not same applies to GF1 but in any case having IBIS is very important to the EP1/2.

While I rely very heavily on IS in my opinion its advantages are way overstated for use with wide to normal lens range since enabling a faster speed to me is much more important to getting a sharp picture. Sure in low light I may be able to get a picture but focus might be hard without focus aid while GF1 has option to use its flash so each has its advantages. If I can get excellent high ISO performance along with IS that is even better. I think some image stabilization tests have actually shown that for speeds above 1/125 sec or 1/200 sec you will actually get a less sharp picture with IS enabled then when having it turn off.

Just some points for your consideration.

Bebrox said:

Bebrox wrote:
What on earth did we do without IS?

Oh yes, stand still hold the camera to the eye and brace yourself properly. Hmm this is an issue with an EP/GF without the EVF. So IS is useful. I reckon that some of the soft shots are caused by the IS in the first place.

Perhaps we are hyped up to feel that we absolutely need some sort of IS, we are never happy.

Think back to photographers who never had Intelligent ISO and IS and critique their work...they are the inspiration.

Click to expand...

Hmm, well, to that I would respond: think back to the good old days when people didn't complain about missing their bus, why they simply jumped on their trusty old horse; and hey, my great grandmother didn't need to complain about power cuts she just braced herself and got on with the business of collecting firewood and kerosene. ;-)

If you are only going to use Micro 4.3rds lenses then the answer is its not requried......

If you are going to use any legacy glass it depends on the speed and length... The legacy glass I have bought for the camera so far is two to 4 stops faster than the Lumix 14-140, I have on the GF1 so its not an issue, as I will be using the glass mostly wide open or lightly stopped down.....

That leaves lenses longer than 280 mm 35mm equivalent.... If you plan on using anything that long, than the answer would be in body will be missed.

So far, the best overall cameras for my needs have come from Panasonic, but I would like in body IS too. Oh well, there's no perfect choice, but at least we have several great choices!

Amin
http://www.mu-43.com (a µ4/3 site)

peppermonkey said:

EIS in Panny cameras does sound like a great thing for manual lenses if they do come out with it. Would alleviate a lot of the huffing and puffing (groaning) we hear about the Panny G line (Course, if the Oly line would just put in better AF and in body emergency/fill flash it would achieve the same thing).

Click to expand...

I'm considering the an m43 but the flash is of no interest to me. Because I already have a suitable TTL flash, and its a real flash. I've got a DSLR without an inbuilt flash, and I have never missed not having a poor inbuilt flash. IMO the GF1's flash is too weak, and if I used it, I'd be disappointed. I'd also think the mechanism on the GF1 is something likely to go wrong in time - although if I get one, that would not worry me, because I will use a real flash.

The camera sales guy told me that nowadays, people buy cameras based upon features and price. The GF1's flash is a sales tool IMO - its a "feature" that differentiates it from its competition. It does little more IMO, and certainly for me I know I would not get good flash results from it.

gaul said:

gaul wrote:
Latest post is from Canon, not from me... for those who disagree...

Click to expand...

To be honest I don't believe that. My cynical view is that Canon probably say that as excuse for a lack of IS in a great many of their shorter focal length lenses.

But in any event, I would be extremely grateful if you could provide a reference link to Canon's claim, or better still (if you know of one) an independent support of that claim.

Thanks in advance.

Regards

I do need stabilization for focal starting from 40mm (80mm in FF).

I really do not understand people asking for stabilization in 20mm or 7-14mm - for both photos an video - I have them and use for both photos and movies. No issues at all.

But OK, maybe my hands do not shake yet ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Jerry_R

It's not about getting great results out of the flash on the GF1. It's about getting some kind of results at all.

In some social settings I would want to carry as little as possible thus no real (i.e. large) flash. So you are in a dark place. You want to take a picture. It's too dark unless you use a tripod, which you wouldn't have for the same reason as not having the flash or put the ISO to xxxxx which you can't do unless you have a non-compact (i.e. really Big) DSLR...which again you won't have for the same reason you don't have a flash. So you either give up on taking the shot (say someone you haven't seen in ages who you just bumped into) or use the 'useless' toy flash that is more market gimic than useful.

Personally I rather get 'some' kind of shot then nothing at all. But that is just my opinion. I know some would bring everything with them no matter if the occasion calls for it or not. Flashes, tripods, lenses, big DSLR's etc. etc. and more power to them. I know some would rather 'not' take a shot of something they know won't be 'good' in their eyes since they think it's useless and garbage. I'm just different. There are times I would much rather just bring a GF1 with a bag that would fit it and go out. And I rather get a not so artistic shot with harsh flash lighting of friends then no shots at all. But that's just me. My opinion.

If you have a real flash with you all the time when carrying the GF1 then I agree. The inboard flash would be useless for you. Some of us would only carry a flash when they think they would use it and because of that we are sometimes caught without a flash when we need it. Thus, the inboard flash, however useless, is suddenly useful in an emergency. But that's just my opinion.

Melbourne Park said:

peppermonkey said:

EIS in Panny cameras does sound like a great thing for manual lenses if they do come out with it. Would alleviate a lot of the huffing and puffing (groaning) we hear about the Panny G line (Course, if the Oly line would just put in better AF and in body emergency/fill flash it would achieve the same thing).

Click to expand...

I'm considering the an m43 but the flash is of no interest to me. Because I already have a suitable TTL flash, and its a real flash. I've got a DSLR without an inbuilt flash, and I have never missed not having a poor inbuilt flash. IMO the GF1's flash is too weak, and if I used it, I'd be disappointed. I'd also think the mechanism on the GF1 is something likely to go wrong in time - although if I get one, that would not worry me, because I will use a real flash.

The camera sales guy told me that nowadays, people buy cameras based upon features and price. The GF1's flash is a sales tool IMO - its a "feature" that differentiates it from its competition. It does little more IMO, and certainly for me I know I would not get good flash results from it.

Click to expand...

--
Hubert

My cameras: GF1, TZ3, recently fixed (I think) Minolta Hi-Matic 7s, broken Konica Auto S2(couldn't fix, who the heck GLUES screws in??), K1000 and my wife's old K110D



http://www.flickr.com/photos/peppermonkey/